Newspapers all over the world are working overtime to brand new Foreign Minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman as a “racist”, “ultra-nationalist”, “right winger” and any other supposedly disparaging term they can dig up.  They will tell you nothing about the man other than he is an evil man who dared to suggested that Israelis, including Israeli-Arabs, be required to take an oath of loyalty.  What they don’t show you is why he suggested it.

Sadly, it seems that our own Government still just doesn’t get it.  Just a few hours after The Jerusalem Post completed the interview below with Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, gave testimony on Capitol Hill that insists that Israel continue the failed policies of the past.  Clinton stated that “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts.  They go hand in hand.”

Israel however has never even hinted that it has any desire to stall peace-making efforts with the so-called Palestinians.  When asked about this, Lieberman stated that his government instead, “intends to take the initiative” [on peace efforts].

Hillary Clinton knows this.  But what she really means when she says “peace efforts” is that Israel must surrender to the Phakestinians, follow the same failed policies of the last 60 plus years, and continue to surrender their sovereignty and security in return for nothing but empty promises.  This however is something that Lieberman, and Netanyahu, (for now it seems) won’t do.

Below are segments from this interview with Avigdor Lieberman.  Hear him in his own words.

_________________________________________

…

Can we start with the issue of two states for two peoples. Wasn’t the international basis for the establishment of Israel that there be a Jewish entity alongside an Arab entity? Is your government now departing from this paradigm or is the principle of two states still the applicable one?

First of all, we must understand why the Palestinian issue is deadlocked, because since 1993 we really made every effort. We had very dovish governments. We can start with Ehud Barak at Camp David, who made a very generous offer to [Yasser] Arafat and he rejected it. As for the Ariel Sharon government, we undertook an insane process called disengagement. We transferred thousands of Jews from the Gaza Strip. We evacuated tens of flowering settlements and we received in return Hamas and Kassam rockets. The last government of Ehud Olmert is the same. From what I saw in the papers, he really made a very very generous offer to Abu Mazen. And the same thing happened: Abu Mazen rejected it.

Were there elements that Olmert offered that were surprising to you?

Of course. I was shocked, as was everybody.

But more than this offer, more important at the end of the day: what was the final result? This was a very dovish government – without Lieberman, without Netanyahu. It was Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni. And the result? The Second Lebanon War, the operation in Gaza, severed diplomatic relations with Mauritania and Qatar, our soldier Gilad Schalit still in captivity.  And we cannot move forward without understanding why.

I know that all of us know some very popular slogans – land for peace, two-state solutions. It would be very easy to win over public opinion or the mass media by talking in slogans. But this is not election time. We’re not during the campaign. We want to bring real results.

Israel has proved its good intentions, our desire for peace. Since 1978, we gave up territories three times larger than Israel. We invested billions of shekels in the Palestinian Authority. We paid a very heavy price. Thousands of our citizens were killed in terrorist acts. What more can we do?

Without understanding the real reasons for this long-standing conflict, we cannot move forward. That’s my view.

Over the last two weeks I’ve had many conversations with my colleagues
around the world. Just today, I saw the political adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Chinese foreign minister and the Czech prime
minister. And everybody, you know, speaks with you like you’re in a campaign: Occupation, settlements, settlers…

You mean they speak in slogans?

Yes, slogans. Settlements, outposts.   And I ask only one thing: What was the situation before 1967, before we established a single settlement. What was before ’48 and ’67? Was it peace, was it a heaven here?

It was the same:  friction, terrorism, bloodshed. The PLO and Fatah were established before ’67 and the Arab countries controlled Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip for 19 years, from ’48 to ’67. Nobody spoke during this time about the Palestinian state. And even before the establishment of the state of Israel, it was the same: friction, tension, terror, riots, pogroms.   People try to simplify the situation with these formulas – land for peace, two-state solution. It’s a lot more complicated.

You don’t need to persuade this newspaper not to speak to you in slogans, but nonetheless, is it not the case that for our sake, to keep a Jewish, democratic Israel, we have to find some way to separate from the Palestinians?  And doesn’t that mean, in principle at least, statehood?  I understand the prime minister’s concerns about what statehood brings with it – giving one the right to arm and to pose a threat.  But what then is the ultimate goal here vis-a-vis the Palestinians?

We must clarify our position. The real reason [for the deadlock with the Palestinians] is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict. It started like other national conflicts. Today it’s a more religious conflict. Today you have the influence of some non-rational players, like Al-Qaida. What is Hamas and Islamic Jihad? It’s Iran by proxy.

To resolve this conflict, it is not enough to repeat slogans. I don’t see any short way for any comprehensive solutions.

From my point of view, we’re interested in three things. First of all, as Israeli citizens, the most important thing is security. I don’t want to see, every day, every morning, Palestinian missiles striking Sderot.

Second, what is most important for the Palestinians? I think it’s also very clear – the economy. Now I say as a settler, we at Nokdim are the biggest employer in our area. I have met many times with Palestinians from the villages around us, who really strongly do not believe in any political process, in peace processes – not in summits, not in conferences, not in declarations…

…

Is our government going to say to the international community and the Americans in particular, ‘We’re not even going to start trying to make progress with the Palestinians until you stop Iran?

No, no, no, no, no.

That’s the impression that’s sometimes being created.

No, we must start with the Palestinian issues because it’s our interest to resolve this problem. But there should be no illusions. To achieve an agreement, to achieve an end of conflict, with no more bloodshed, no more terror, no more claims – that’s impossible until Iran [is addressed], one of the biggest players in our arena.

…

You say you don’t foresee a comprehensive solution in the near future, but we’re already hearing from the new American president that this has been going on for long enough.

Annapolis was the wrong approach. With the Road Map, you can see some logical path: First of all, [for the PA to] dismantle terrorist organizations, collect illegal weapons, establish a justice system and establish normal state institutions. You have three stages in the Road Map, with 48-49 paragraphs. Only the last stage, the last paragraphs, deal with negotiations for the permanent solution. So, [under Annapolis,] to jump straight to the last paragraph and to concede on all of the Palestinian commitments to fight terror – it’s a very strange approach.

Now in our policy review, it’s a new government and we need time. I’m not ready for someone to stand with a stopwatch and say, ‘What’s happening, what’s happening?’ I talked with [President Obama’s special envoy George] Mitchell, and he well understood our problems.

The people of Israel made their decision [in the elections] and this is really the right time to examine new ideas, new approaches, new visions. We’re trying to formulate this new approach now.

{The Entire Interview Including Comments On Iran, and Hamas}

_____________________________________

Although I do not agree completely with everything Liberman says in his interview, I believe that the Netanyahu government is on the right track by trying something different.  Despite what the World media wish for you to believe, Liberman is hardly an “extremist”, nor a “ultra-nationalist”.  His only sin here is that he questions the prevailing so-called wisdom, of blaming the conflict on Israel not giving enough to the Arabs.  The problem however is that the media is wrong, and Liberman is right.  The main stumbling block with the Arab-Israeli conflict has been the World’s insistance that we continue the same failed policies.  Sadly, from the words of Secretary of State Clinton, it seems that the U.S. still doesn’t get it, and I am afraid that with an Obama Administration we never will.  Despite history, they wish to continue the “all for nothing from Israel” policies that have caused the stalemate Israel and the Arabs are in today.

For the sake of everyone involved, I pray for the peace of Israel, and that our leaders finally get it!

____________________________

In related news:  PA Court: Death Penalty To Arab For Selling Land To Jew